if apple can prove that their code and methods of implementation has been copied then yeah totally go for an arm and a leg from samsung coz they stole your hard work but they didnt... instead they liked something and found out another way of doing it and did it their own way (and since Apple is so sour now about that - they probably did it better than Apple)..

So either suck it up that someone created a better product than yours or make something even better and beat them at it..

Samsung Galaxy S2 had the voice talk and voice commands way before Siri was released.. but samsung didnt start jumping up and down saying their idea was stolen.. they just accepted that a better voice assistant was created and they made it better in the S3 and with jelly bean "Google Now" even does better..

Apple being sour? Don't think so, although there is a bit of sourness on here due to Apple beating Samsung in a court case. And its subjective if you feel Samsungs implemenation is better. Thats the issue with these threads at time, we all like our fave device, but often it gets one sided. I use Apple, but I'm trying to sit neutral and discuss the rights and wrongs of patents, not get into a discussion biased by your chosen device, or how you or I may feel on the case outcome. In fact a patent thread has nothing to do with Apple or Samsung, there are many cases over the years on the same issues.

tdgeek: Nice detailed post. Where do you see pinch to zoom? It software, but more so it is an idea. Standard fare these days, but a great innovation.

I see pinch-to-zoom falling under the same category. It's an idea, but how it's handled can be done many ways. Nobody should be given full rights to all of those different ways.

It's also not an original idea. In the movie Minority Report (2004), there are scenes where Tom Cruise's character is manipulating data on a holographic screen. There's at least one place in one of these scenes where he zooms in on an image by 'grabbing' a point with each hand and stretching them apart. This is very much a pinch-to-zoom type of interface, being shown in a sci-fi movie that pre-dates the iPhone by more than 2 years.

I'd then assume that the movie did not patent that idea, although it isnt a product, its a movie.

The key thing here is 'prior art'. US patent law requires that all patented inventions are 'novel'. The existence of sufficiently similar prior art should cause the patent to fail this novelty test, and therefore not get granted.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are so many software patents that it's almost impossible to find all relevant prior art. Patent examiners certainly aren't given anywhere near the time needed to do a thorough search, let along an exhaustive search. As such, there are huge numbers of patents being granted for things that are already covered by other patents. There was a study done on this, but I can't find the link right now. I'll post it if I find it.

tdgeek: Nice detailed post. Where do you see pinch to zoom? It software, but more so it is an idea. Standard fare these days, but a great innovation.

I see pinch-to-zoom falling under the same category. It's an idea, but how it's handled can be done many ways. Nobody should be given full rights to all of those different ways.

It's also not an original idea. In the movie Minority Report (2004), there are scenes where Tom Cruise's character is manipulating data on a holographic screen. There's at least one place in one of these scenes where he zooms in on an image by 'grabbing' a point with each hand and stretching them apart. This is very much a pinch-to-zoom type of interface, being shown in a sci-fi movie that pre-dates the iPhone by more than 2 years.

I am sorry but the pinch-and-zoom idea in Minority Report has no commercial consequences, i.e. its not the reason why we pay to see the movie, nor did the movie producers invested $$ in researching that the pinch-and-zoom is good for that particular scene in the movie. Not a good example i am afraid.

if apple can prove that their code and methods of implementation has been copied then yeah totally go for an arm and a leg from samsung coz they stole your hard work but they didnt... instead they liked something and found out another way of doing it and did it their own way (and since Apple is so sour now about that - they probably did it better than Apple)..

So either suck it up that someone created a better product than yours or make something even better and beat them at it..

Samsung Galaxy S2 had the voice talk and voice commands way before Siri was released.. but samsung didnt start jumping up and down saying their idea was stolen.. they just accepted that a better voice assistant was created and they made it better in the S3 and with jelly bean "Google Now" even does better..

Apple being sour? Don't think so, although there is a bit of sourness on here due to Apple beating Samsung in a court case. And its subjective if you feel Samsungs implemenation is better. Thats the issue with these threads at time, we all like our fave device, but often it gets one sided. I use Apple, but I'm trying to sit neutral and discuss the rights and wrongs of patents, not get into a discussion biased by your chosen device, or how you or I may feel on the case outcome. In fact a patent thread has nothing to do with Apple or Samsung, there are many cases over the years on the same issues.

I dont feel one's implementation is better than the other, I just gave an example.. coz if you see someone tried to copy your idea and made an inferior product, you wouldnt be too fussed about it anyway..

I have used apple and I have used samsung galaxy devices and they both have their own pros and cons because they have both implemented the ideas in their own ways..

tdgeek:?Nice detailed post.? Where do you see pinch to zoom?? It software, but more so it is an idea. Standard fare these days, but a great innovation.

I see pinch-to-zoom falling under the same category. It's an idea, but how it's handled can be done many ways. Nobody should be given full rights to all of those different ways.

It's also not an original idea. In the movie Minority Report (2004), there are scenes where Tom Cruise's character is manipulating data on a holographic screen. There's at least one place in one of these scenes where he zooms in on an image by 'grabbing' a point with each hand and stretching them apart. This is very much a pinch-to-zoom type of interface, being shown in a sci-fi movie that pre-dates the iPhone by more than 2 years.

I'd then assume that the movie did not patent that idea, although it isnt a product, its a movie.

Lets just say that they werent stupid enough to think that they should...

tdgeek: Nice detailed post. Where do you see pinch to zoom? It software, but more so it is an idea. Standard fare these days, but a great innovation.

I see pinch-to-zoom falling under the same category. It's an idea, but how it's handled can be done many ways. Nobody should be given full rights to all of those different ways.

It's also not an original idea. In the movie Minority Report (2004), there are scenes where Tom Cruise's character is manipulating data on a holographic screen. There's at least one place in one of these scenes where he zooms in on an image by 'grabbing' a point with each hand and stretching them apart. This is very much a pinch-to-zoom type of interface, being shown in a sci-fi movie that pre-dates the iPhone by more than 2 years.

I was thinking the Minority Report too when reading about pinch-to-zoom. INAL but I thought that if the idea was already in the public domain then it could not be patented. According to IMDB, this film was released in 2002 - the CGI was probably made in 2001 and probably thought of potentially years before that.

Didn't we have the same argument about the Galaxy Tab where someone was using a "tablet style" device in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey from 1968 - but still it took court cases to overturn the sales ban in Oz.

What we should all be doing is looking through sci-fi movies and patenting ideas so that when the eventually do come true we can be rich. Oh hang on, Apple have already patented that idea :P

I admit, I'm not an Apple fan - that does not make me a phandroid (I've even bought an iPad and iPod shuffle for my wife). I think Apple products are well presented but are overpriced (58%) and they are using market force and patents to bully/stifle competition - in the same way Microsoft were accused of doing.

ibuksh:I have used apple and I have used samsung galaxy devices and they both have their own pros and cons because they have both implemented the ideas in their own ways..

I gather that pinch to zoom is an idea, I'm not sure what tech to provide that function falls under the patent. I'd certainly call it novel and patentable for that very reason. I would not call curved edges patentable, the issue there is more a passing off. But at the end of the day, the value Apple placed on these numbers of infringements was just $24 per device. Should have bought licences or got a legal judgement early on. ironically, in Stuff today, Samsung engineers have been working on designs to avoid the patent issues for a year now . many of these companies pay each other for various things, iOS has Google based default apps, they paid Google a lot for Maps, Google pays Apple a lot for Apple to use Google search in iOS, its actually quite fascinating. But I digress!

I am sorry but the pinch-and-zoom idea in Minority Report has no commercial consequences, i.e. its not the reason why we pay to see the movie, nor did the movie producers invested $$ in researching that the pinch-and-zoom is good for that particular scene in the movie. Not a good example i am afraid.

If someone invents something and releases it, and they don't patent it, someone else can't later patent that same invention because there is prior art. The fact that the prior art was not patented is irrelevant.

I am sorry but the pinch-and-zoom idea in Minority Report has no commercial consequences, i.e. its not the reason why we pay to see the movie, nor did the movie producers invested $$ in researching that the pinch-and-zoom is good for that particular scene in the movie. Not a good example i am afraid.

If someone invents something and releases it, and they don't patent it, someone else can't later patent that same invention because there is prior art. The fact that the prior art was not patented is irrelevant.

tdgeek: Nice detailed post. Where do you see pinch to zoom? It software, but more so it is an idea. Standard fare these days, but a great innovation.

I see pinch-to-zoom falling under the same category. It's an idea, but how it's handled can be done many ways. Nobody should be given full rights to all of those different ways.

It's also not an original idea. In the movie Minority Report (2004), there are scenes where Tom Cruise's character is manipulating data on a holographic screen. There's at least one place in one of these scenes where he zooms in on an image by 'grabbing' a point with each hand and stretching them apart. This is very much a pinch-to-zoom type of interface, being shown in a sci-fi movie that pre-dates the iPhone by more than 2 years.

I was thinking the Minority Report too when reading about pinch-to-zoom. INAL but I thought that if the idea was already in the public domain then it could not be patented. According to IMDB, this film was released in 2002 - the CGI was probably made in 2001 and probably thought of potentially years before that.

Didn't we have the same argument about the Galaxy Tab where someone was using a "tablet style" device in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey from 1968 - but still it took court cases to overturn the sales ban in Oz.

What we should all be doing is looking through sci-fi movies and patenting ideas so that when the eventually do come true we can be rich. Oh hang on, Apple have already patented that idea :P

I admit, I'm not an Apple fan - that does not make me a phandroid (I've even bought an iPad and iPod shuffle for my wife). I think Apple products are well presented but are overpriced (58%) and they are using market force and patents to bully/stifle competition - in the same way Microsoft were accused of doing.

At the end of the day, these behemoth companies are fighting hard. Apple, Google, Samsung. That's driving progress on devices, and irregardless of what we use or prefer, we all get the underlying benefit. Thats a good thing.

ibuksh:I have used apple and I have used samsung galaxy devices and they both have their own pros and cons because they have both implemented the ideas in their own ways..

I gather that pinch to zoom is an idea, I'm not sure what tech to provide that function falls under the patent. I'd certainly call it novel and patentable for that very reason. I would not call curved edges patentable, the issue there is more a passing off. But at the end of the day, the value Apple placed on these numbers of infringements was just $24 per device. Should have bought licences or got a legal judgement early on. ironically, in Stuff today, Samsung engineers have been working on designs to avoid the patent issues for a year now . many of these companies pay each other for various things, iOS has Google based default apps, they paid Google a lot for Maps, Google pays Apple a lot for Apple to use Google search in iOS, its actually quite fascinating. But I digress!

The technology that they use to implement that idea could be patented. But someone else can totally build up another way of implementing the same thing their own way..

Like it was said earlier in this thread, its not a simple decompile , recompile , repackage..

tdgeek: At the end of the day, these behemoth companies are fighting hard. Apple, Google, Samsung. That's driving progress on devices, and irregardless of what we use or prefer, we all get the underlying benefit. Thats a good thing.

I don't see how patents and lawsuits are driving progress or benefiting consumers though... surely the competition in the marketplace is driving the progress and that's where the consumer sees the benefits.

tdgeek: At the end of the day, these behemoth companies are fighting hard. Apple, Google, Samsung. That's driving progress on devices, and irregardless of what we use or prefer, we all get the underlying benefit. Thats a good thing.

I don't see how patents and lawsuits are driving progress or benefiting consumers though... surely the competition in the marketplace is driving the progress and that's where the consumer sees the benefits.

I guess what he (probably) meant was people are coming up with better and better ideas and that how the customers are benefitting